WSP04021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

030151 43 less than the April - September flow or the undepleteu natural flow of the stream from October through March. This is the way minimum flow recommendations ma~e in this report should be viewed. Keeping the foregoing cost analysis in mind and considering the magnitude of the instream flow assessment program still ahead, Colorado cannot afford the luxury of an incremental method of analysis on each and every stream. Some criteria must be set forth to relate the level of importance of the stream to the level of intensity of instream flow analysis deemed necessary. As a first level of evaluation, I recommend that the Si~g!e Transect R-2 Cross Method ,be used, but with the suggested changes in the program to improve its reliability and accuracy. This method could be used on the majority of streams where filings for water rights are to be made with the CWCB. It should be used only on those streams of little to perhaps moderate value as far ~s the fisheries resource is concerned. Examples might be head- water streams at high elevations that receive little or no use by the fishing public as well as streams on national resource lands where encroachment by diversion, pollution, and development is not anticipated as a serious problem. The second level of evaluation might be on ma;or streams of moderate to good recreational potential or streams selected for some sort of stream improvement program. Streams in this classi- fication support moderate to heavy public use for fishing, kay- aking, and other types of outdoor recreation. They are usually more subject to the encroachments of water development, diversion, and pollution. At this level some sort of multiple transect methodology should be used, perhaps the multiple R-2 Cross for least important streams in this category but the IFG2 or W~t~~~ Surface Profile (WSP) interfaced with the IFG3 Habitat Program for the more important streams in this category. The third and highest level of priority would be reserved for those streams of critical importance to either the state or federal natural resource agencies. At this level of intensity, the most sophisticated incremental analysis would be required, either the WSP or IFG4. Either would be interfaced with the IFG3 Habitat Program for a weighted usable area analysis. Streams in this classification would prob~p1~~ank among the top ~O st~eams in the state from a fisheries standp~int. Examples might be the Fryingpan River below Ruedi Dam, the South Platte River below Cheesman Dam, the Gunnison River upstream from Hotchkiss, Rio Grande River from Del Norte upstream, the Cache la Poudre River, North Platte River, and the Blue River. From a rare and endangered species point of view this might include sections of the White and Yampa Rivers, the Colorado River below Grand Junction, and others. It might also include those important streams either undergoing or in serious danger of encroachment from pollution, energy development, water diversion, or impoundment.